I) Is it ethical to kill cows and oxen to eat beef?
II) It it ethical to kill dogs and cats to eat their meat?
I) Is it ethical to kill cows and oxen to eat beef? II) It it ethical to kill dogs and cats to eat their meat?
I) Is it ethical to kill cows and oxen to eat beef?
II) It it ethical to kill dogs and cats to eat their meat?
>I) Is it ethical to kill cows and oxen to eat beef?
Yes
>II) It it ethical to kill dogs and cats to eat their meat?
As long as they aren’t pets.
Yes and yes.
you can kill animals for food
you cant kill pets
this, pets are unkillable
both are ethical but dog and cat meat isn't very nutritious
>vegan scientists think sperm become intelligent humans in your nutsack if you leave them alone for 20 years
No wonder they have no responses for
How much energy would it take for a human female to subsist herself for a 9 month pregnancy (having to eat nutrient dense food like meat or cheese so they don't have a vegan miscarriage). When you can just i dunno eat an animal that feeds on grass. Even if you want to eat babies instead of cows it doesn't make sense to. You would need to eat more cows to make all those babies to eat than if you just ate those cows....
Even if you think your human life is worth as little as an animal that was selectively bred to be our food source. It still doesn't make sense for us to eat people over cows. There is no vegan counter argument for this. Want to stubbornly say babies are as retarded as animals until you are red in the face, fine. Go believe that, it still doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for us to eat livestock animals. Especially since a vegan diet has never existed in nature until modern pharmaceuticals and the closest thing was a lacto-vegetarian diet. Which is where retarded cow worship stems from originally.
>Humans spend countless hours, resources and energy to make it through pregnancy
>Lolduh same as a spermzz duuhhh guh hyuk
Vegans not sending their brightest today
>meat eaters use "potential" argument
>get mad when its used back at them
I don't get why you're acting like I'm arguing for eating babies. It's such a bizarre straw man. All I'm pointing out is that using your moral arguments, there is nothing wrong with eating babies, according to you - except now you can only come up with practical reasons to not eat babies, not moral reasons
>animal that was selectively bred to be our food source
what's stopping you from selectively breeding humans as a food source then?
>Especially since a vegan diet has never existed in nature until modern pharmaceuticals and the closest thing was a lacto-vegetarian diet.
This is just appeal to nature
the truth is meat is just innefficient in modern times. It's a waste of food, energy, and money, and it's cruel too
>selectively breeding humans as a food source then
Disease for one glaring problem.
>there is nothing wrong with eating babies
Nice putting words in my mouth. Again you keep ignoring the problem of how humans are morally and physically superior to animals thus their suffering is irrelevant.
>moral reasons
Eating babies is morally wrong
>but what about animals
It is not morally wrong to eat animals. Again you keep equating that animals are equal to humans which they aren't.
>Disease for one glaring problem.
This is a problem with all animal agriculture
>Nice putting words in my mouth. Again you keep ignoring the problem of how humans are morally and physically superior to animals thus their suffering is irrelevant.
It's the logical conclusion to your words. Humans being "morally and physically superior", whether or not it is true, does not make it ok to torture other things that can suffer in the same way. Exactly like how someone being weaker than you does not make it ok to torture them.
>Eating babies is morally wrong
Eating animals is also morally wrong.
>Again you keep equating that animals are equal to humans which they aren't.
I don't need to equate them for it to be wrong to eat animals.
So to you, the instant a sperm touches an egg, it becomes a philosopher? or maybe the instant a sperm enters the womb?
>eating animals is morally wrong
No it isn't. Especially since animals have no concept of morality.
>someone being weaker than you does not make it ok to torture them
Of course it doesn't because that person is a human being and deserves respect. Animals on the other hand do not deserve the respect. They get whatever we grant them because we are superior. An animals wants and needs shouldn't be our concern.
>i don't need to equate them to know it is wrong
In order for it to be wrong an animal must first be equal to a human first.
>the instant a sperm touches an egg, it becomes a philosopher? or maybe the instant a sperm enters the womb?
The instant it does it immediately has the potential to become a philosopher. It is immediately already morally superior since it will be able to conceive the concept of morals unlike animals.
>No it isn't. Especially since animals have no concept of morality.
So is a human worthless if they have no concept of morality? What about a completely different concept of morality to yours?
>An animals wants and needs shouldn't be our concern.
I think animals deserve to not be subjected to industrial torture and mass murder for the sake of our taste buds
>In order for it to be wrong an animal must first be equal to a human first.
no
> It is immediately already morally superior since it will be able to conceive the concept of morals unlike animals.
So can't I say this about a sperm the moment before it touches the egg? It will be able to conceive of morals some day, it just hasn't become a zygote yet. It has the potential to become a zygote, which has the potential to become a human. So, a sperm has the potential to become a human, right?
Anyway, meat has a human cost too. In addition to the direct causes of death: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/meat-production-leads-to-thousands-of-air-quality-related-deaths-annually#:~:text=Now%20new%20research%20shows%20that,meat%2C%20dairy%2C%20and%20eggs.
Meat is an incredibly inefficient way of producing nutrition. We waste an incredible amount of food feeding livestock when we could just be growing food that could be fed to people instead. We don't need the endless cattle ranches that destroy countless habitats and waste horrible amounts of space. Governments have to heavily subsidize every meat producer because of the insane costs of producing meat
Whataboutism Whataboutism Whataboutism
All of this stuff is irrelevant. Explain to me why I as a human should give two shits about a cow?
>because it is alive
Don't care. It isn't a human. Every post you made, you made it about lowering humans to an animals level.
>what if a human has no morally
>what about a person who isn't a philosopher
>what about cum stains
Answer me this,
Why should I show mercy to livestock when that is why they exist? Why should I let chickens run free from air conditioned barns for them to die of heat stroke in the 120 degree heat and humidity of Alabama? How is it helping animals when the instant they leave their cage a predator snatches them instantly?
If you really want to die on this hill. We as humans should use our technology to prevent any and all animals from eating each other. Based on your own logic. Obviously.
>If you really want to die on this hill. We as humans should use our technology to prevent any and all animals from eating each other. Based on your own logic. Obviously.
No, the environment is necessary. Meat production is not.
>Why should I show mercy to livestock when that is why they exist? Why should I let chickens run free from air conditioned barns for them to die of heat stroke in the 120 degree heat and humidity of Alabama? How is it helping animals when the instant they leave their cage a predator snatches them instantly?
They dont have to be released. You simply stop breeding them.
>Every post you made, you made it about lowering humans to an animals level.
because your conditions of what make it alright to do whatever you want to animals can also be applied to humans. That's your own fault. you dont' have consistent rules, you just want to kill animals because it makes your tongue feel good
But again, maybe you ignored that part of the last post, but meat productions harms humans quite a bit too
>the environment is necessary
Appeal to nature fallacy
>because your conditions of what make it alright to do whatever you want to animals can also be applied to humans.
Except it can't be applied to humans. Humans are above animals. Any animal you try to equate to a human is an uneven equivalence. If you've been reading my posts at all you would see that I have been very vocal about "babies are off limits not because they aren't philosophers but because they are human". "You don't bully and torture a person weaker than you because they are a human"
Animals on the other hand are beasta of fields who no nothing. Being a human is litteraly the standard. Keep comparing humans and animals you might as well try comparing amoebas to humans.
>opinion piece paywall article
Irrelevant. You want to improve the air quality. It will be easier to convince people to give up their cars and tractors rather than livestock. You know, the animals we as humans selected for the specific purpose to be eaten by us
>they have brain thus they are like us
No they aren't. Pic related. The cognitive superiority is what separates us morally, ethically, and physically from simple animals. There is no reason to care about an animal processed for food no different a child should care about the ants he steps on.
>I also think animals have enough value that its wrong to kill and torture them so your taste buds feel nice for a minute
Tell me what value do they have? Because to me and millions around the world, their value is their meat. Period.
Except you are wrong thinking sperm has potential on its own. Your thouht process starts with a false pretense.
>potential argument
Ironic since animals have no potential unless we as humans give it to them
No, it's not ethical. But I'm still averse to passing legislation against it because I don't like the idea of artificially disrupting the free market
Two different animals, you might as well say it's okay to eat humans since we're animals. Dogs are secondary consumer and higher on the energy pyramid and require meat, to gain meat at a lower mass than a primary consumer. infact if you love cows so much why would we need to go feed dogs meat for lower quality lower rations of meat? How many cows would you have to kill to feed how many dogs.
>But street dog-
Wow so you would eat vermin and disease infeated meat, taking a life to barely sate your appetite? That's the thing, a cow's life will feed more humans than a singular dog's life, and you would require less energy to get them to that point.
Vegans, foreigners and libtards beaten by good old fashion science and logic again.
>we have so many suffering feral street dogs we should eat them and breed them instead of cows
>B-b-b-because i just hate dogs and love cows heckin okay????
>Yes
>No
>Why?
>Because dogs and cats are my friends and i like to eat steak
jeet detected
good morning sir
kindly use designated shitting street when you do the needful
Are you unable to make a single argument so you call me an indian and post a random related image?
>cow is bred to be a livestock animal for producing meat and milk
It’s fine to eat them if they are treated well and allowed to live a comfortable life.
>dogs bred to be working animals that respond and understand a wider degree of human emotional signals
Only ok to eat them in times of famine. Not ok to be cruel or neglectful of them as they require more attention and care.
Simple as.
it was literally like crashing a car back in the day. its horsepower was more useful alive.
the reason why we only eat the animals we do eat is because every thing else either wouldnt be a good animal for production or it taste like shit, the industry all ready has to try its best to get people to eat pork out side of bacon, i only like beef chicken and fish, you would have to make some animal onions green to feed to poor people if you wanted to try and get people to eat all that other shit even though making meat out of most animals that arnt the size of cows would economically be retarded and taste like absolute crap
so in other words
>why do you eat tasty economically feasible meat
>and not economically retarded meat you would have a hard time getting hobos to eat
yes to both
no, and no
meat is unethical
>Because animal products sustain me
But a plant-based diet can sustain you just as well.
Humans are omnivores for a reason. To sustain a healthy diet without genetically modified supplements would be near impossible.
>Humans are omnivores for a reason
An omnivore is simply an animal that can survive on both plants and meat. It has nothing to do with being required to eat meat to be healthy.
>To sustain a healthy diet without genetically modified supplements would be near impossible.
Why are you so afraid of supplements?
Why are you so afraid of eating meat? Why take shitty supplements when I can eat a delicious steak? Technically speaking by your logic there is no reason to eat vegetables or fruit either since supplements exist for those as well.
>Why are you so afraid of eating meat?
Because I'd rather not eat the flesh of a dead, formerly conscious animal and contribute to a murderous industry. It just has no appeal anymore.
>Why take shitty supplements when I can eat a delicious steak?
Because you would be doing less harm, and these days it's almost trivially easy to be vegan if you have access to a supermarket. That being said, if you really don't like the idea of taking pills, you don't even have to do that, because there are so many foods with B12, Iron, etc. added into them. And there are so many good meat substitutes now that there really is no excuse at all for the average first worlder to keep eating meat.
>by your logic there is no reason to eat vegetables or fruit either since supplements exist for those as well
You can't live off supplements alone.
>You can't live off supplements alone
Of course you need water
>first world
So it is perfectly okay for third and 2nd worlders to eat meat but not the first?
>the animals get hurt
So? Again why should animals be given human rights? They are litteraly sub-human.
>Of course you need water
It's still not feasible.
>So it is perfectly okay for third and 2nd worlders to eat meat but not the first?
In some cases, yes. If something bad is necessary for you, then you have more of an excuse for doing it than someone for whom it isn't necessary.
>So? Again why should animals be given human rights?
What do you mean by "human rights?" Do you think animals should have any rights at all?
How again is meat bad? Just because an animal dies to provide for it?
Animals don't deserve rights that are equal to humans. No. I have no care for animals meant to be breeded for our consumption
>How again is meat bad? Just because an animal dies to provide for it?
yeah
>I have no care for animals meant to be breeded for our consumption
ok psychopath
>people who eat meat are psychopaths
Why should I care about animals meant to serve and nurture us?
>>people who eat meat are psychopaths
Most people who eat meat do not claim to "have no care for animals."
>Why should I care about animals meant to serve and nurture us?
Animals do not exist for your benefit.
>animals do not exist for your benefit
literally bred to be eaten for our benefit lmao
literally evolved to be eaten by eachother for eachothers benefit lmao
its over
you can not have Science + "Liberalism", Science demolishes Liberalism and renders all morality null.
There is only nature and nature is antithetical to your worldview.
I care for animals that matter to me. I do not care about animals that are my food.
>Animals do not exist for your benefit.
Yes they do. That is why we subjugated them and killed the rest that were threats. Did you know 60% of all mammals are livestock. 36% are humans and 4% are the ones that are "wild".
>The slaves exist for our benefit. That's why we enslaved them.
>equating humans to animals
Again animals do not deserve human rights
>it's different because.... it just is, ok!
>animals are equal to humans
Tou must be mentally retarded to believe this.
What is the morally relevant difference between animals and humans which makes it okay to kill and eat one but not okay to kill and eat the other?
>difference between animals and humans
We can reflect qualities such as love and justice. Animals only act on instinct. We have the ability to learn languages, appreciate and create art, and enjoy and make music. And unlike any animal, humans have developed religion and complex thought. Here is an example. Try and show a horse a painting, what do you think will happen? It will become disinterested and walk away, same with a sunset or any other natural beauty. Animals are inferior to humans in every way imaginable and deserve to be subjugated to better humanity, breed into playthings for our own amusement, or eaten. No amount of philosophical cope or ethics screeching of "meat is murder" will change this.
Humans are so much more than just a mere animal. You crying about the poor inferior animal does nothing to elevate their position. You lowering yourself to their position is pathetic. They are beneath humanity.
Show me the rhino Plato or the hippo Socrates and I will listen to their philosophy of life.
Give me the Ceasar eagle or Alexandar falcon and I will walk in his Empire.
Grant me the Snake sculptor or tortoise painter and I will wonder at their art.
Oh wait, none of those animals can do any of those things because they are merely beasts of the land. They bend to the will of man. And they either accept we rule over them or they die. That is what separates us for them.
>no we shouldnt eat animals
>dog eats a crying babys face off and feels absolutely noting, actually if any thing it feels good for doing its biological processes
>Man kicks dog then euthanizes it or takes it to the back yard and puts a .38 into its head.
Dog should have remembered its place. Too bad it is a dumb animal.
How is any of that morally relevant?
Humans have morals. Animals have no morals. I dumbed it down for your tiny animal brain.
So? Babies don't have morals, but it's not okay to kill babies.
people all ready are
Yes, because a BABY IS A HUMAN. Your tiny beast brain must have a hard time reading through the posts huh.
how is any moral beliefs retentive to any one? people find animals inferior thats a belief system just like thinking animals are friends is a belief system
>Show me the rhino Plato or the hippo Socrates and I will listen to their philosophy of life.'
show me the baby philosopher - oh wait, that's not possible. Guess I'll eat babies now.
None of this has anything to do with whether its ethical to kill and eat something. Would you kill and eat someone because they arent a philosopher or conqueror or painter? It's about ability to suffer.
You should also realize that there are numerous animals more intelligent than children
You are blinded by your emotions for your blind simping for animals. A baby and child all have potential to actually be a philosopher. Hell even those crippled with mental retardation can still be functioning members of society. And yet an animal will always be just that, a beast incapable of cerebral progress.
>there are numerous animals more intelligent than children
Congratulations. Some animals almost peak to infant standards. Bravo.
>potential
a sperm has the potential to be a human, that does not mean its worth anything
>No because they are a human and are above animals
your only reason humans are above animals is that there is no animal philosopher or whatever. There is no baby philosopher either. So are adults sufficiently above babies that they can eat them?
I'm not even arguing that humans and other animals are completely equivalent - I'm simply saying that animals suffer the same exact way humans do. So it's wrong to make them suffer for your own enjoyment. it's pretty simple
A sperm isn't a human yet and you are right has no value. While an infant has value since humans and humanity have value.
>there are no baby philosophers so babies can be eaten
And once again. No. Since cannibalism is ethically, morally, and physically wrong in every sense. Humans have worth. Animals are given worth by humans.
>animals suffer
Animals suffer in the wild. Plants suffer just like animals and humans yet you are okay with one living organism to be consumed while the other not? And again you fail to address my original argument. Why should we as humans care the animals suffer? What makes their suffering so special that we NEED to address their concerns when they don't have the mental capacity to even understand their suffering? Why should I give up delicious food and pets to send them to the wild to die slow horrible deaths. By your logic it would be better to euthanize all animals that way they won't be suffering anymore.
Even a retarded human with 80iq is able to be philosophical, or are you saying because a human doesn't publish literature they are equivalent to a vermin animal? Babies have every capacity to become an intelligent human if left alive. An animal is going to be a dumb animal the moment it is born to the moment it dies.
a sperm has the capacity to be an intelligent human.
>By your logic it would be better to euthanize all animals that way they won't be suffering anymore.
lmao no, just because animals suffer does not mean you can build a torture camp for them and feel fine about it. They have the mental capacity to understand their own suffering because it works in the exact same way your suffering works. Anti depressants are tested on rats. Because it works on both rats and humans. Because both human brains and rat brains have the same mechanisms of suffering.
Guess what doesn't have brains though? Plants. but even if they did - raising livestock requires growing disgustingly large amounts of plants to feed the animals - more than half of crops we grow in the US are fed to animals. It's a complete waste.
you're making circular arguments though. you say that humans have value because humans have value. Sure, I agree humans have value. I also think animals have enough value that its wrong to kill and torture them so your taste buds feel nice for a minute
>animals have enough value so we shouldn't eat them
That is a majority of an animals value to humans. Some fill a niche roll but a majority of animals are only valuable because they are food. If they aren't going to be food they are just going to be a waste of resources.
cannibals value people for meat. Does that make it ok for them to eat people?
No. Something's value isn't just its practical use for you - if that's true, then people are only a means to an end for you. Something's value is based on what the animal actually is, and its cognitive ability. not your arbitrary perception of what is useful to you specifically
and? is an egg that has suddenly been touched by one sperm suddenly a philosopher? what about the sperm inside a womb before it reaches the egg? you dont have to do anything and eventually that sperm will become a human
surely you see that something having the potential to become something doesn't mean its worth that something. it has to actually be that something
>a sperm has the capacity to be an intelligent human.
No it doesn't it needs an egg to fertilize or else it is worthless.
Actually a sperm doesn't it needs to fertilize an egg and then actually make it to birth which isn't a certainty, miscarriages happen all the time. Also only one sperm fertilizes the egg the other billion are wasted. Nobody is treating their sperm like a newborn baby lmao get a load of this guy. Really starting to show that lack of 50 essential nutrients in your head. Maybe make a coherent point. Humans have babies expecting to raise them into adulthood. Everytime somebody nuts in a girl they're not expecting parenthood. What if a women's not ovulating? You are so full of shit dude for real. In like 6 years that baby is going to be smarter than any animal we eat. In 6 years a cow will be a cow. And in 6 years a sperm will be shot in a tissue and replaced a million times over. Before you make that tired dreary argument for yhe hundredth time.
> Nobody is treating their sperm like a newborn baby lmao get a load of this guy.
literally my exact point. do you have any sort of reading comprehension? did you graduate high school? People don't value sperm, or a zygote that was just impregnated, because even if it has the potential to become an intelligent human, it is not one
>Would you kill and eat someone because they arent a philosopher or conqueror or painter
No because they are a human and are above animals. You are pretty slow to follow the thread.
both humans and animals have the exact same mechanisms of suffering, because who would've guessed, humans are animals
Explain to me why animals deserve human rights.
no, cows and ox were bred to be eaten, it is the purpose given to them.
dogs were bred to be companions, it is the purpose given to them, through co-evolution Humans who lived alongside both animals have also selected for traits associated with eating cattle and being friendly with dogs.
Thats just how it is, there is no debate here.
>but sinoids eat le dog
>bindia no eat cow
and the only debate we should be having is will we save our animal companions from the sinoids and teach our indian friends how to enjoy the fine cuts of the bovid?
Cow only exists to become meat.
Dog and cat only exist because we love them.
>ethical
According to who?
I need to eat red meat cus i lift 5 times a week, seething dyel cucks on Wauf malding while i fuck 10/10 bitches
And people said slavery was needed for labor. I'm talking ethics here, not needs.
>5 times a week
you would get stronger and larger if you gymmed out thrice a week then took a week off.
its ethical to eat whatever you need to eat in order to survive.
if you have choices in what you can eat the ethical choice from there is to choose to minimize suffering.
No and no, but unethical behavior is circumstantial and overdetermined. Someone could go their whole life without touching meat of any kind, but if they lived in the U.S., they were a passive participant in one of the most gruesome periods of mass animal slaughter the world has ever seen. There's no point in viewing it as ethical or unethical - it's happening and will continue unabated without organized opposition.
I get your point, but at an individual level or point of view, if something is unethical, it should be avoided even without any consequential impact or change on the overall structure of things, doesn't it?
How are they a passive participant if they aren't participating? Is there no neutrality in your mind? What a polarizing view of life you have.
Cats and dogs are food.
In emergency situations
Rabbit should be on the other side of the horse.
>thinly veiled PETA thread
Stop espousing nazi ideology and trying to make everyone a vegetarian like Hitler you fucking nazi
Uuh I'm pretty sure I kinda hate Hitler, thanks
Then stop promoting his beliefs about vegetarianism
No
Yes
Contrarian fag
I'm not eating bugs.
Eat tasty plants, american stupid. Spaguetti can be a vegetarian dish. That's just one example. Pasta is wheat. Broccoli is not meat. Cauliflower is not meat. There are a lot of natural oils that are not of onions. Grains exist!
I do eat tasty plants, with my beef.
This
Green beans are enhanced by meat sauce making them the best side to have with steak
>thread about ethics
>gets happy for winning a discussion about flavour
eating meat brings me joy
eating meat is morally good
There you go
Where do you think those plants come from? A plowed field. A field wherein Every living thing was killed to grow your cauliflower. At least I actually eat what's killed to feed me.
>American stupid
God I hate foreigners so goddamn much
You enjoy mediocre game like runescape
>boo hoo you like a thing
Already ran out of arguments lmao. pathetic Euro. go eat some plain turnips.
Newfags
Japs don't like Runescape but play shit like Earthbound?
Wack
I don't know whether it is sad or cute that you still play runescape. You should go to an autism club or something and meet people, try different things instead of playing an old video game. Life is short.
rune scape is more based then wow or ff14, seeth
no one has played runescape for 10 years except turboautists
at least its not any other fucking mmo rpg
"Stupid" is also a noun and "American" is also an adjective. Stupid.
The first are bred and raised to be consumed
The second are bred to be companions
Cows are easily companion material and very good at it. We don't see them properly because we are obssesed with beef so much.
Explain what use a cow has for a companion.
Dogs are helpful with hunting and keeping strangers from the home.
Cats keep vermin away.
A cow can do little more than provide beef and milk
>Explain what use a cow has for a companion
Being a companion? Many dog breeds bred for companionship are fucking useless for any work task or are redundant/status markers. Hell the sheer utility of keeping a cow for land maintenance is a thing. Chickens can actually hunt pests very well because they still retain their foraging instincts
A companion utterly impractical to keep in a average home. Miss me with having to clean up massive cow shits from my rug
Good point.
No.
No.
Ethics is a spook just like you.
Yes and yes. Humans and different cultures around the world have done both.
>ethically
I don't care. I eat what I like and don't eat what I don't like. This is America, I will happily discriminate against you for your race and religion but not what you eat unless it is cannibalistic or retarded based on my way of thinking.
Yes
No
Animals that have served humanity in a partnership role are taboo.
Dogs/Horses/Cats/Pigeon etc. etc.
Cows have always been livestock, and don't have that status.
It's that simple.
What makes it taboo to use an animal to better humanity?
The fact that you are inflicting pain into an innocent creature
Last I remember plows don't hurt cows and saddles don't hurt horses. Telling a pigeon to send a note to your friend. You can argue people abuse their pets but that is a small minority and pretty irrelevant
>cows never served humanity
>what are plows
Retard
Sorry kid but my people were smart enough to make work horses for that.
>my people
Not the argument. The argument was that cattle have ALWAYS been a livestock and throughout history of the entire world that proves you wrong homosexual.
>Dogs/Horses/Cats/Pigeon
People ate or still eat those
It depends on the situation you are in and the culture you follow. I follow a culture where beef is a normal delicacy so I eat steak, hamburgers, etc. I don't care what happens to other cats or dogs. I care about my pet, but if I were to travel to a place that offered properly cooked cats or dogs I would try it.
Reminder humans are above all animals. We simply allow them to exist. They deserve to be our workers and food.
>Reminder humans are above all animals. We simply allow them to exist. They deserve to be our workers and food.
Doesn't seem a very ethical idea
Ethics are subjective. I follows God's word to subdue the Earth and the animals. What of you?
>Ethics are subjective
Why should I accept this radical form of skepticism?
By the fact that people have different forms of morals proves ethics are subjective. It is wrong to get an abortion. While others think murdering kids is ok.
People have different beliefs about the shape of the earth, and yet there is only one fact of the matter. People who think it's ok to kill animals unnecessarily are just incorrect. Period.
Okay. Define unnecessarily then.
Shape of the Earth has nothing to do with ethics
>food is unnecessary
Fuck off tree fag
Why is it necessary for you to consume animal products?
Because animal products sustain me and it tastes good and they are there to be eaten. Animals are NOT our equals and anyone who gives them that role are idiotic and mental. We are superior to them in every single way.
>By the fact that people have different forms of morals proves ethics are subjective
it doesn't lol
>Ethics are subjective
Stupid. Morals are relative. Ethics are by definition objective and absolute.
Yes. Absolute to the person. Here is the definition for you brainlet
>moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
>objetive and absolute
>but only to the person
Show me the definition. Cause no definition defines ethics as absolute.
That second definition is good. Éthos comes from greek and means "nature, disposition". Ethics are to disposition (éthos) - of men - as politics are to city (polis). Ethics is the study of how to ideally be.
are the study*
Ideally be to who?
That information is not part of the concept. Ideal is the best it could possibly be, considering there is a metaphysical reference to perfection.
IS it ethical to boss people arround on the ground that you're a homosexual?
American argumentation everyone?
You're focusing on the killing. These animals live their entire lives in suffering and terror. The industries that produce them are pervasively harmful to the biosphere and the economy.
And for what? You could eat less, or eat something else and suffer no harm except that you experience less pleasure.
Everyone's life is nothing but an episode of suffering, get over it.
Yes, there is nothing morally wrong with eating a cow or oxen for food, and there is nothing morally wrong with eating dogs and cats for food, but most of us prefer not to eat cats and dogs, so is this meant to be like some gotcha question because I don't understand your reasoning for posting thishere?
>and there is nothing morally wrong with eating dogs and cats for food
Elaborate?
Everywhere, cats and dogs have been eaten or killed, and the only difference between them and a cow or an oxen is that humans regard the former as pets and the latter as food.
>cats and dogs have been eaten or killed
Are they eaten or killed on the regular or only in times of strif and conflict. Because there is a big difference between eating a stray cat when your city is besiged and you have no food vs going to your local diner and ordering the "Ruff Roofus" well done dog burger.
> eating cats
Imagine the worms
Frankly this.
No, no
Since they're not human beings and if they're not someone's pet then yes, out of the cultural context, there is no social issue with killing them for meat.
But historically and culturally, in the west, dogs have a special place beside mankind and deserve protection and respect.
And so killing dogs for meat should be outlawed.
>Since they're not human beings and if they're not someone's pet then yes, out of the cultural context, there is no social issue with killing them for meat
So killing basically inoffensive docile creatures is ethical?
So long as you are killing them for meat rather than killing for killing sake and they aren't human. Yes.
Cows can hardly be described as inoffensive.
Give me your definition of an inoffensive creature?
philosophy has got to be the most cucked hobby there is
Not really, sociology is
Yes and yes, only reason why eating cats and dogs is taboo is because they were bred as companions rather than livestock.
Generally speaking eating carnivore meat isn't a great idea, I'm not sure of the medical reasons for that, but it's bad for you if you do it long term.
Carnivores absorb less energy from the food they eat since they can only process the fat and meat. When you eat a cow, you're getting the energy from the meat and the food the cow had eaten and stored in its muscle and fat. So eating a cow is always more beneficial than eating a tiger that ate a cow.
>>2nd year med student
A big reason why you shouldn’t eat carnivores is the accumulation of parasites and poisonous elements. Mercury and trichinosis are huge in carnivores
>I) Is it ethical to kill cows and oxen to eat beef?
>II) It it ethical to kill dogs and cats to eat their meat?
We should worship cows , eat their poo and drink their piss.